Does Obama Want to Lose? Yes! ... Alan Caruba

Does Obama Want to Lose? Yes!

By Alan Caruba

It seems like a bizarre notion, but does Barack Obama want to lose the election in November?

I think he does!

One is struck by the way Obama has visibly aged in the job. He may well have grown weary being POTUS.

By any rational standard, one would say he wants a second term, but Obama has always operated in a fantasy world where mere words are supposed to translate into reality. And he has repeatedly talked about being a one-term president.

He is, after all, his own invention; the author of two memoirs of a life that had little achievement to point to other than getting elected first to the Illinois legislature and then to the Senate where he lingered a bare two years before running for president.

I raise the question because Obama seems to be deliberately irritating the very people who are supposed to be his “base”; the hard core liberals, the Hollywood crowd, youth, and unions, among others. His partisanship has put Congress into total gridlock.

When members of the Occupy movement showed up in Washington, D.C., one of them threw a smoke bomb onto the White House lawn. Others who have been camped out in a park there are likely to be tossed out if for no other reason than the place is overrun with rats and has become a public health hazard.

The decision to stop the Keystone pipeline is a deliberate offense to the unions that have contributed millions to his campaign. Why? It pleased the environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. Americans, however, understand the pipeline represented both jobs and oil, two things they deem worth having.

Then there are all the vacations Obama and his family takes. They have one thing in common. They are ostentatiously expensive. Obama or Michelle always seem to be going on vacation or returning from one. The characterization may be unfair, but perception is everything.

Americans are very keen on their military and, of all the government programs Obama could have chosen to trim, he’s had the knives out for the Pentagon since he took office. While a war-weary public was likely pleased when he withdrew troops from Iraq (neither Bush, nor Obama had a choice as the Iraqis made it clear they wanted U.S. troops out), the fact remains that the main news out of Iraq these days are bombings as the Sunni versus Shiite conflict has returned. Afghanistan remains a millstone.

Even in the face of a clear threat, it is unlikely that Obama would respond militarily between now and Election Day. The most likely scenario, however, would be an Israeli decision to strike at Iran before it becomes a full-fledged nuclear threat. It must be said, however, that Obama and other NATO nations have positioned some military assets in the Persian Gulf, but would he pull the trigger? It’s doubtful.

The most obvious problem Obama faces is unemployment. It’s variously set at anywhere from 11% to 20% depending on the part of the nation you’re discussing. It still is far too high everywhere and he gives every impression of being, if not indifferent to it, at least in no hurry to address it. Most certainly none of his programs have reduced it. His alleged “stimulus” was little more than a political slush fund that added billions to the national debt and failed.

Every President is subject to “events” and the likely default of Greece and financial troubles of several European nations are likely to impact the national election as Americans try to sort out what effect it will have here. Obama has already presided over the first downgrade of America’s debt rating and we shall surely be reminded of that in the months ahead.

The other event will be the Supreme Court hearing of the case against Obamacare in March. They may not issue a decision right away or they might issue one just before November 6th.

There are two lines of thought about the forthcoming national election. Past Presidents were relieved to leave office despite its power and prestige. (1) Obama may not like being President and (2) he has concluded that he will be defeated. He gives the impression of not caring about public opinion anymore.

The only people publicly defending him seem to have Attention Deficit Disorder. Either they haven’t paid attention to what a disaster his term has been thus far or they just don’t think it’s his fault.

I think he will go through the motions, but I also think a majority of voters no longer believe a word he says anymore.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Political Analysis Paralysis ... Alan Caruba

Political Analysis Paralysis

By Alan Caruba

Leading up to the Iowa caucuses and following in the wake of their results, the cable news channels and every other news media engaged in a paroxysm of political analysis, interviewing the candidates incessantly from the early hours of the morning until late at night.

I suspect that for many Americans this excess of analysis causes them to “shut down” and ignore the race, the issues, and the candidates. I suspect, too, the avalanche of political advertisements in Iowa exhausted what enthusiasm might have existed.


Divided by eight votes for first place, Romney and Santorum split the lead with Paul in third. The other candidates will begin to fade from contention. Iowa is a popularity contest, not a real political race for delegates to the GOP convention.


I recall spending a day in 1972 with George McGovern as he made the rounds of party bosses in New Jersey. He would be decisively defeated by Richard Nixon.  Ron Paul has the same base of idealistic youth who think his ideas would work in the real world. The grownups know they wouldn’t. If Paul were the GOP candidate, he would suffer a similar fate as McGovern.



Meanwhile, the cable news analysts found themselves saying the same things over and over again.


An example of this was Sarah Palin whose specialty is repeating the obvious while occasionally venturing an opinion such as her judgment that Michele Bachmann’s time has not come as a candidate. One might well have said the same of her when she was Sen. McCain’s bizarre selection to be on the GOP ticket in 2008. She was not ready for prime time then and is the darling of Fox News now for reasons only Rupert Murdock knows.


In addition to political analysis there were and are the polls which rose and fell on an hourly basis. Some like Rasmussen and Gallup are considered to be the most valid, but a host of others chimed in to leave one wondering whether polls really tell us anything other than those with land lines get called and those with cell phones do not.


I have participated in this all-American guessing game, but mostly to point out that Mitt Romney can get elected while the others cannot. I expressed strong reservations about Newt Gingrich and did my best to ignore Ron Paul.


Being first in the electoral process is Iowa’s quadrennial claim to fame.


In the end it simply does not matter what the outcome in Iowa is. Iowa’s voters represent a negligible amount of Republicans, a thin slice of rural America. Moreover, Iowa has a poor record for picking the next president. Its purpose is to be a battleground where candidates test their message, their organizational strength, their ability to get campaign funding, and whether they can stand up to the horrendous process of running for president.


All that matters in the forthcoming election is the defeat of Barack Obama. I still think Mitt Romney is the man to do it.


Failing Obama’s defeat, the near future of America would be in peril and his initial efforts to destroy the nation with Obamacare, open borders, and the thwarting of access to our vast energy reserves will succeed. The poll numbers hold the key and at this point Obama’s continue to fall even among his base.


Who will be the Republican nominee? He will be selected by the end of January after the voters in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida have their say.


© Alan Caruba, 2012

The Great Panjandrum of Pundits ... Alan Caruba

The Great Panjandrum of Pundits

By Alan Caruba

It’s a little known event, perhaps because its participants want it that way, but as the new year is poised to begin, the Grand Panjandrum of Pundits gathered at an undisclosed location for their annual review of all the predictions they made regarding things that did not occur, all the events that did occur—taking them by complete surprise, and to exchange notes on their thoughts regarding 2012.

The philosopher Aristotle had it right when he said “Stuff happens.”

This particularly applied to the third year of Barack Hussein Obama’s extended vacation as President of the United States of America. He ended the year comparing himself to previous presidents whose shoes he is not fit to shine and whose bathwater he is ill equipped to draw.

On January 2, 2010, I wrote that I thought Obama’s life, at least in the chronology and facts that were presented to the public, was a pure fiction, make believe.  By then Americans had experienced a year’s worth of ineptitude that left anyone paying any attention astonished. It was just one blunder after another.

Even more astonishing is that no court, no one in Congress, and no one in the Republican Party has dared to say that the man was and remains ineligible to be President. Plenty of other people have said it. My friend, Dr. Jerome Corsi, wrote a whole book about it; two in fact.

The glaring truth that no one wants to address is the fact that his father was a citizen of Kenya and, as such, the terms of the U.S. Constitution which require that only “natural born” citizens—those whose both parents are U.S. citizens—can hold the office of President.

When you add in the serious doubts over the authenticity of his birth certificate—declared a fake by document experts and the dubious authenticity of his Social Security number, issued in Connecticut where he never worked a day in his life, and you have enough evidence to send him packing in less than 24-hours.

Even so, the Democratic Party will put him on the ballot again to run for office in 2012. The legality of this is no more likely to be challenged than it was in 2008, though some are trying. The Grand Panjandrum of Pundits was left to scratch their heads and mumble about the strangeness of this.

There was one thing they agreed upon. Barack Hussein Obama is the worst President the nation has ever had to endure.

No other president even comes close. He is the first to preside over the first U.S. sovereign debt downgrade in American history.

He has been responsible for the highest level of federal spending (25% of GDP) since World War Two and, in a comparable fashion, the highest level of federal debt (67% of GDP) since then as well.

Employment is the lowest since 1983 and long-term unemployment (45.9%) is the highest since the 1930s, the years of the Great Depression.

The rate of home ownership (59.7%) is the lowest since 1965 and the percentage of taxpayers paying income tax is the lowest in the modern era. At the same time, the level of government dependency (47%), those persons receiving one ore more federal benefit payments, is the highest in American history.

Obama and his economic advisors have achieved this in just three years while others in his administration were authorizing millions in loan guarantees to “Green” companies going bankrupt with alarming predictability or producing heavily subsidized products that no one wanted to purchase. Others we’re told were unaware of a Department of Justice program to run guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Plans to shut down Gitmo were quietly shelved. The Bush-Cheney policies were quietly extended.

Within twenty-four hours of the final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Baghdad was besieged by bombings while the prime minister was busy trying to arrest and indict the vice president. You cannot make up stuff like this.

We are now mere months away from the Supreme Court hearing a case regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare. It is normal for judges who have had any previous involvement in a case or those close to it to recuse themselves from participating, but the Obama administration is so marked by a lack of ethics that his former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, now an Associate Justice, has still not announced her decision.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Obamacare, the federal government can require you to spend your money on things you do not want and may not need.

This is why the Grand Panjandrum of Pundits ended in a state of mass confusion and despair. Just like it did in 2010.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

************************

 Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Elections Have Consequences

Elections Have Consequences
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

It is less than a year to Election Day 2012.  By now, we should all know that elections have consequences.  We are all suffering as a result of the consequences wrought by turning the entire US government over to the democrats beginning as far back as 2007.   We very nearly lost our country … and the danger isn’t over yet.



Over the next few months, we are going to see the Mainstream Media in America pull out all the stops as they run interference for President Obama and the Democrats.  It will become increasingly difficult to dig through the layers of bovine scatology the MsM will pile up to camouflage the damage the Obama administration has done to America.  They will make every effort to destroy the republican candidates – and -- when the GOP nominee is decided, expect the MsM to tear him to shreds.
 
Already, Obama is declaring how he needs another term to finish the job.  I agree.  One more term of Obama and America WILL BE FINISHED. 
  
It appears that Obama is planning on a “Blame it on Bush” themed campaign.  Don’t expect “The One” to take responsibility for anything!  Our fearless “Bystander-in-Chief” will happily take the credit -- but never the responsibility or the blame.  He’s just that kind of guy.


Over the next few months the Republicans will be blamed for everything that has happened to America under the Obama administration. But before you buy into all the leftist propaganda we suggest you consider the article below, which has been floating around the web. 
 
I have no idea who authored the article below but it IS interesting.  Please read on: 


Remember January 3, 2007


The day the Democrats took over was not January 22, 2009 when Obama took office with Democratic control of both house of Congress. It was actually January 3, 2007 the day Democrats gained control over the House of Representatives and the Senate. The infamous start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is the Conservatives or Bush’s fault, think about this:

January 3, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.
At the time:


The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77


The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%


The Unemployment rate was 4.6%


George Bush’s Economic policies had just set a record of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION after orchestrating a recovery of a mild recession he inherited from the aftermath of the Clinton era!



Remember the day… January 3, 2007


It was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
  
Remember, the Community Reinvestment Act they sponsored? You can thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco’s! 

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening).


And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? Then Senator Obama.

 
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? Obama and the Democratic Congress.

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. “THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”

Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal, the steering wheel and they were driving. Set the record straight on Bush!

So, as you listen to all the commercials and media from the Democrats who are now distancing themselves from their voting record and their party, remember how they didn’t listen to you when you said you didn’t want all the bailouts, you didn’t want the health care bill, you didn’t want cap and trade, you didn’t want them to continue spending money we don’t have.

I’m not forgetting their complicity in getting us into this mess, and I’ll be marking my vote accordingly!

“It’s not that liberals aren’t smart, it’s just that so much of what they know isn’t so” -Ronald Reagan

Every election is important.  But I cannot think of a single election in my lifetime of over seven decades that was as important to America as the election in November of 2012.  

As we stand on the cusp of a global financial collapse America will need a leader, indeed, the WORLD will need a leader not afraid to lead from the front.  What America does not need is another four years of Obama.

J. D. Longstreet